(sorry about the "double" post, I get a bad auth error when trying to edit)

I forgot to add that Europe is mandating that you should be able to choose your healthcare provider so it's possible to get out of the government run system (it's actually not that easy yet, but it's getting better and should be a breeze once France is fined for not respecting his obligations - which happens a lot ). That should get you back probably 80 to 90% of the money you pay to the state. Few people do it though and some of them have gone back when facing the real costs (pre-existing condition, anyone?)

I actually think the supply of Doctors will decrease... it's been on the steady decline for over a decade now.

People aren't majoring in Medicine anymore... they're not putting in the 9+ years of school so they can be sued a dozen times a year for malpractice the second anybody's cough isn't cured over the weekend.  They're majoring in "Business" and "Technology", not Medicine.

Ask any (Medical) doctor how long they went to school, likely the least amount you'll hear is "7 years", that doesn't include Residency or anything... which is easily another 3-5.  During which time, the person is poor and near lifeless because of the amount of studying and time they have to put into work.
(And that's just a general practicianer, try asking a Neuro or Heart Surgeon how much time THEY put in!)

The only way this "plan" would work is if the Government gave some sort of extra incentive to actually BECOME doctors... such as protection from frivolous malpractice suits or discounts on malpractice insurance, which any (Surgical) Doctor's Office will tell you is near half their Operating Cost... and rising!

to recap:
People aren't becoming Doctors. (and giving them healthcare isn't an incentive to start)
Doctors spend a decade + in training. (and today's society doesn't care for that length of time)
There's no reason for people to desire to become Doctors. (and plenty of reasons for them to desire not to)

Obama says the cost of healthcare is what's bankrupting our country, that we must reduce the cost of healthcare.

He claims that the proposed government takeover of healthcare is the answer to that problem, that 'greater efficiency' will reduce the cost enough to save us from collapse.  However you slice it, he's wrong.  Increased efficiency is the equivalent of increased productivity - greater output with less labor.  Increased productivity is universally accepted as a good thing, increasing the standard of living.  Not so with healthcare.  An increase in productivity is the last thing they are looking for.

Government believes that in healthcare, efficiency is the enemy of cost control.  That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from what the government has actually done over the past 40 years, as opposed to its rhetoric.  It was simple, straightforward and easy to deliver care in the 60's and 70's and relatively cheap in GDP terms.  The more the government has insinuated itself into healthcare, the faster the cost of healthcare has risen, which has, of course, been blamed on insufficient government insinuation into healthcare and its subsequent expansion.  Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, here we are at 20% of GDP (set aside the debate over whether that is a good or bad thing, whether there is a 'right' percentage).

When my father was ill and hospitalized with pneumonia in 1971, our family doctor was able to get an experimental antibiotic flown in from England within 24 hours.  A family doctor, not a specialist, and all he had to do was pick up a phone and request it.  No authorization forms, no 'certification,' nothing more than his judgment about what his patient needed, based on his laborious training and acquired knowledge.  That was efficient, and it simply wouldn't, couldn't, happen now.  Barriers have been erected systematically, relentlessly and with intent to prevent just such efficiency, all in the name of saving money, especially in Medicare.  Private insurers, once they saw how effective 'efficiency control' was for the feds, went & did them one better, with a little subsidy from the feds to be sure they got the market share the feds wanted them to have (you may remember HMO's were paid more because they were 'more efficient' - look how well that worked out).

Littleboy, I'm glad you live there because I have been stating that France has one of the better UHC systems.  Go here and scroll down ( https://forums.joeuser.com/358734 )

In France the tax rate is 30% for anyone who makes 25,233 to 67,555 (Euros, I if you go to the link and scroll down I converted everything to dollars) while if you make more than 67,555 your taxs are 40%.  In reality you guys are paying for it and like you stated most of the population is paying for it which is only 62 million people.  (On an unrelated topic, I do like how France is using Nuclear power and I wish the U.S would follow France in this because 3 Mile Island and Chernobel were all human error/ignorance.  The systems are stronger and more secure. We are able to get a butt load of more enegry now than we could from the older Nuclear power plants.  Nuclear power is cleanier and the waste, which is an extreme negative, has become more manageable.  Why can't the States do this instead of the UHC?).  

The United States is almost 5 times larger than Frances' population for the population in the States is either just about 300 million or a little over that. 

If you go to that link, you'll see that.  When I was in Grad School some time ago, I would ALWAYS hear how the U.S is the only industrial nation that does not have a UHC system.  Most people that make that agrument think that some how Canada, U.K., and European countries have the same population size as the U.S. or vice versa.  Truth of the matter is that the States are by far much larger than all of those other countries.

Then I also hear the usually statement: 'think how many people are all unisured in the States.'  I never said this but I thought this (for it is an extreme thought) think of all those unisured in China and India.  I'm not sure about China, but in India I know there is a ton of unisured (yes I know that India isn't on the same level as the other countries we're discussing) yet I'm sure neither of those two countries will ever adopt a UHC system due to the fact people will agree that their population size is too big. 

UHC is more geared to smaller populations.  ON top of that you're almost guranteed to be paying higher taxes.  Just go to that link and scroll down. The U.S tax rate is lower than the usual suspects that get lined in the comparison of UHC systems.  I'm guessing that our tax system is more complex and more imbecilic, though.  Also, our system was probably made from a room full of neonates and anything that they said was put into the tax code hence why its so long and confusing.

Under Obamacare, she'd be determined 'too old' and denied treatment.  After all, 'we can't continue to pay for things that don't make us well'.  The facts about pancreatic cancer survival, no matter how early it is diagnosed, are grim.  The characteristics of the rare 'long-term' survivors are completely unpredictable and, were she not a Supreme Court Justice, she wouldn't make the cut when her case came up before the 'panel of experts' - not at 76, only 3 years away from her life expectancy, especially once the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research renders a ruling on the management of pancreatic cancer (the FCCCER has already been created, thanks to HR1, the 'stimulus' bill).

I believe some aspects of health care can be  more efficient, such as the administrative areas. I like the electronic medical record concept (though I firmly believe the government and private insurance should not have their hands on this). Go to the doctors office, punch in a pin (or a biometric for emergency service).

When has the government provided exceptional value on anything? The few health services they now provide are either wasteful, inefficient, or corrupt (VA, Medicaid, Medicare). Who in their right mind can possibly believe they will get a national plan right?

I hear a lot of talk about being able to keep my current health plan. Gee thanks! Does that mean that I then don't have to pay for my plan and again via taxes for someone else? Good deal for them I guess. So where is the incentive to pay your own way, when you MUST pay anyway via your taxes? We live in a slackers paradise.

I'm not going to even get into reduced health care for the elderly. Groups like AARP are so glued to Obama's member, sort of like the media,  that they are selling out their constituents by supporting this travesty. Remember the not too distant screams when Bush proposed private retirement savings accounts along side social security? Funny how quiet it is now.

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see some company hawking health insurance for people that are self-employed or want something other than what their work place provides. Insurance is available. I wonder how many people just are too cheap, or think they are invulnerable to buy it? When I was younger I probably would have forgone coverage just to make my paycheck a little larger, had I not been under military health care. I get that, but it is a personal choice to take it or not. Look at your pay stubs folks, Medicare taken out of your paycheck is not refunded when tax returns are submitted, If if you effectively pay nothing. What are you going to save if this amount increases? Then the choice to risk it is moot, you will pay, and you won't pocket the extra few bucks each payday. Let the people decide.

I think that in this case the facts speak for themselves. In Canada, we have universal healthcare -and-

• Per capita we pay less for healthcare in taxes than someone paying for health insurance in the states (there is no middleman in Canada needing to make a profit like there is with the insurance companies in the states) 
• All mortality statistics are lower for Canadian citizens than American citizens- we live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, and suffer from less debilitating conditions during said lifespans.
• If I have a major medical problem, I will get priority treatment -and- do not have to worry about my premiums going up, having to take out a second mortgage or declaring bankruptcy just so that I can have the audacity to keep on living. Also I do not have to worry about having coverage denied because an insurance company decided that I lied about a pre-existing condition or that my treatment is 'experimental' and therefore not covered. In short, the decision about my care is made by my doctor, NOT by a hospital administrator with his eye on his companies bottom line.
• Adequate healthcare is not affordable by someone making minimum wage in the U.S. Let's run these numbers: A fellow working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks at minimum wage will pull in about 15,800 dollars a year. Now, basic health insurance for a family will cost in the ballpark of 13,200 dollars. So, our fellow working on minimum wage, if he wants to get coverage for his family, will have 2600 dollars a year to live on (just over 200 bucks a month) Now I know this isn't realistic but it serves as a good example. Considering the state of the economy, there's a lot of folks who can't do much better than minimum wage to begin with.
• Economically universal healthcare is a -GOOD- thing for employers. Both German and Japanese automakers don't have near the  headaches that GM and FORD do. Why? Because they don't have to worry about paying for their workers health care, -OR- for their pensioned retirees healthcare. That's all taken care of by the government in those countries. In the States, with each passing year Ford and GM had ongoing ballooning costs as the number of retirees they had to cover kept going up and up (and as folks get older the amount and cost of care goes up considerably too)

So what is the benefit of having a privatized healthcare system? Those with the means to pay for the "Platinum" package get amazing treatment. Admittedly much better than that offered by a socialized system. However, those who can only pay for the Silver package might be in trouble if they start making too many claims (how dare they!) or run into a problem not covered by their plan.... which really is absolutely ridiculous. How can anyone realistically anticipate what number of possible medical conditions they might run into in a few decades?!? And, if you're like most average joes in the world, you can't even afford the silver package but instead have to shell out dough for the Bronze package, which could be called "Best Effort"

I will maintain to my grave (which statistically I will visit after living more years on this earth than an American) that to include the profit motive in healthcare is simply wrong for several reasons. Yes, healthcare has a cost, as does everything, but that cost should be covered by a public system whose primary motivation is to deliver effective service to everyone -rather than- turning a profit. In short, healthcare should be a service, not a business. And it is for that reason that it should be public, which, it already is in every single industrialized country except for the United States.

Great points! Enjoy that 1.83 years longer you have to live. You'll need it to pay your tax burden.

Example of Canadian earning  80K for 2008. http://www.pwc.com/en_CA/ca/tax/publications/tax-facts-figures-2008-en.pdf

Federal Income Tax: 13,677.00

Provincial/Territorial tax (range highest to lowest): 24, 078.00 (Quebec) 17,771.00 (Nunavut) 

Nonresident Federal: 22, 374.00

Unadjusted taxes for person making 80K and living in Quebec 47.19375%

The US earning 80K for 2008

Federal Income Tax: $16,385 single $ 12,694 married http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf

State Taxes: California (Used highest rate of 10.3%) $8240.00 http://www.bankrate.com/yho/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_Cal.asp

BTW my state of Virginia the tax burden on 80K is $ 4343.00 in contrast.

Unadjusted taxes for single person making 80K and living in California 30.78125%

Today's currency rate: 1.00 USD = 1.08601 CAD or $24,625.00 USD = 26,742.75 (in case anyone was wondering), percentages are unaffected.

So if your paying $11,012.25 (CAD) more (in comparison to California) in taxes for the economical, scientific, industrial. military, and cultural power house that is Canada, your health care should be top notch, right? In fact it must be the "Platinum" level you alluded to in your comments. So tell me why do some Canadians come to the US for treatment? Keep your Canadian national heath care, peddle crazy somewhere else.

BTW even fast food outlets (McDonald's, Hardy's, etc.) offer health care for their "minimum wage" employees.

Nitro-

You're absolutely right. My tax burden is excessively higher than a counter-part in the States would have. And it needs to be.

Let's take a look at the details. Canada has 1/10th the population of the States and geographically, is larger. So, we have far fewer people spread out over a much larger area. And, if our tax rate wasn't what it is, we couldn't function as a nation. We have remote communities of a few hundred people for which -no business case exists-

In order to have potable water, phone system, internet and power grid for one of these towns that is fly in access only (so remote that there are no roads to it) subzidization is necessary to provide those services. So, why do we even keep a town there?

1) History has proven that forced relocation of an entire population rarely has a good end-outcome

2) The community is usually nearby a very large mineral deposit of say, uranium. Or in the case of where I live, a few hundred miles north there are three large diamond mines and less than sixty miles south they've found a whole bunch of rare earth elements that currently are only being mined in quantity in places like China and Congo (Lithium, Tantalum, etc, etc)

So while there is no direct reason to have a community there, indirectly there are a thousand reasons that benefit the whole nation, so it makes sense to keep it alive via subsidization. Therefore higher taxation required.

But the real bonus? Higher taxation means there are more opportunities for everyone that otherwise, wouldn't have those opportunities. I went through college on federal student loans which are pretty much better than anything I could ever dream of getting from a bank. It's a loan which cannot be defaulted on, if I have trouble re-paying....and can prove I'm not trying to bilk the system.... they'll drop my interest rate to zero and the monthly payment to 10 dollars a month. Or even temporarily suspend re-payment depending on my situation.

Here's another incentive. If I start a family and raise my kids in the northern part of the country, they will be able to go to any university or college they want to in Canada, and the government pays the way, as well as providing living costs for them while they're there. This is a government incentive to keep population in the north, so that one day we may realize our dream of conquest and invade Alaska (kidding)

Seriously though, this is a huge burden that my kids wouldn't have to worry about. Quality post-secondary education costs tens of thousands of dollars which puts young people in a severely disadvantaged situation when they graduate. Unless, of course you're going to become a doctor or lawyer and then it's not such a big deal. My brother is going to have approx 90-100K in debt once he graduates, but he's then going to be an optometrist and make enough income to be able to repay that.

Anywho, off-topic I know. Yes, we pay much higher taxes. But the trade-off is that I'll never have to worry about medical bills or coverage.

Indeed. And I wonder what exactly that coverage offers? I wonder what kind of claims they can make and get coverage for, what the deductibles are and so forth? It is a documented fact that many of the folks who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills actually -had- coverage, just not very good or complete coverage. And I highly doubt that McDonald's springs for the gold package for it's employees.

I do believe that 13,200 dollar figure I got was for the average rate someone would pay if they approached an HMO directly as an individual. It does make sense that a company would get a "group" rate that would be much better than individual, just like buying in bulk. However, if enough employees of a company make claims that start hurting the HMO's bottom line it can (and has in the past) told the company it's going to up the premiums, or tighten the criteria, etc etc.

I'm an advocate for effective preventive care and early detection as well, but not for the same reason.  There have been several actuarial studies which have posed that widespread prevention & early detection programs would actually be more expensive when the costs of the programs and the costs of subsequent healthcare consumption over a longer lifetime are considered, even allowing for the 'continued productivity of the patient.'  The fact is, even if your pancreatic cancer is detected early and 'cured' you will die from something else and the cost of care for your final year of life will be just as high as it would otherwise have been, on average.  It'll just occur in a different year.

Since I approach the moral question from the standpoint of the individual, I favor preventive measures & early detection efforts, but from a public health perspective and societal cost perspective, it is a problematic issue.  If the decisions are being made at the level of the federal government based on what the tax base can afford, anonymous individuals will suffer the consequences.  If the decisions are being made by individual patients and their physicians, the market with 'suffer the consequences'.  It all boils down to what you value more: individual freedom of choice or sacrificing individual freedom of choice for the 'greater good' with the greater good being determined by self-designated elites.  It's one thing to choose the latter approach voluntarily, which is the case with our military for example, but another to be forced to do so.